Best Loudspeakers for Rich Timbre?

I was hoping that the very simple explanation of why a speaker cone should be pistonic will enlighten you (this has nothing to do with Vandersteen, he just happened to explain it well). These are all very basic concept of physics, but you have to embrace real science first, which I now understand you are not willing (or capable) of doing. 

 BTW, "POLYPROPYLENE" cones are actually much worse, i.e less pistonic,  then harden "PAPER CONE", which is what typically is used in today drivers.

sciencecop,

You are being evasive, not "educational" which suggests "education" isn’t your actual motivation in responding to my posts.

Of course, nothing in what I’ve posted abandons "real science." That’s just a flip remark to try to make yourself feel superior without bothering to justify that claim.

As I said, I’m well aware...like pretty much anyone who has followed high end audio...that speaker designers have long understood the benefits of pistonic behaviour in drivers. Simply repeating, even after I pointed that out, that you think you are "enlightening" me on this idea is simply ignoring my reply to continue subtle chest-puffing on your part.

You’ve simply evaded the actual points I’ve raised. I have objected to mheinze’s over-board claims that Harbeth speakers are "low resolution" designs and only give "50%" resolution (talk about claims pulled out of one’s arse).

Pretty much all drivers have compromises of one sort or another, which is why various types are used by manufacturers, and debated among the DIY speaker crowd.

But we are talking about claims made against a SPECIFIC speaker company, Harbeth.

Every speaker designer chooses a driver for the characteristics that are desirable for their goal, while minimizing the flaws. Harbeth claims to have spent many years and lots of money to minimize the flaws of a polypropylene driver, increasing stiffness and pistonic behaviour, while maintaining the desirable characteristics, all with the goal of a low coloration speaker design.

Now, if YOU claim, along with mheinze that Harbeth has FAILED in that design goal, and that Harbeth speakers are in fact "low resolution" speakers or only produce "50%" resolution, then you need to show this, rather than post links to the performance of some other unnamed speaker manufacturer’s paper cone, as if THAT demonstrated your case.

For my part, I’ve actually supplied links to actual 3rd party measurements of the Harbeth SuperHL5 plus, and despite your (unevidenced) claim about whatever bias Atkinson may have, he has supplied measurements in support of his remarks that indicate low coloration in the Radial driver in particular, and a balanced well designed speaker in general.

But while we are waiting on you supplying actual evidence against this, how about some more 3rd party evidence in support of the excellence of the Harbeth speaker design.

From this review:

http://i.nextmedia.com.au/Assets/harbeth_super_hl5_plus_speakers_review_test_lores.pdf

Listening impressions from the reviewer:

First impressions are always important, whether it’s people, companies or loudspeak-ers, and my first impression of the Harbeth Super HL5plus was that its sound was amaz-ingly cohesive and stunningly real, very similar to what I hear from full-range designs (Lowther et al) but with none of the bass or treble limitations of full-range loudspeakers. It’s so stunningly real that although I will do so for the purpose of this review, it’s as if the bass, the midrange and the treble no longer exist as separate entities that need to be described as such, but you’re instead just listening to ‘music’—music that’s been freed from the normal transitions that must take place from a bass driver to a midrange driver to a tweeter.

The clarity and detail that are delivered across almost the entire spectrum in which musical instrument fundamentals occur is stunningly good.

From the measurements section:

Harbeth’s Super HL5plus proved to have an extremely smooth and superbly extended frequency response, characterised by a very slight spectral tilt that saw the bass/midrange region very slightly elevated compared to the output at higher frequencies. You can see the evidence of this in Graph 1, which shows the averaged frequency response using pink noise as a test stimulus. It’s important to first note the extension and linearity of the Harbeth Super HL5plus’s response, as measured by Newport Test Labs, because it extends from 45Hz to 40kHz ±3dB—EXTENSION AND LINEARITY THAT ARE, IN MY MEMORY, UNPRECEDENTED.

Be-tween 80Hz and 10kHz the response is within ±1.25dB which is, yet again, a superb result.

--------

To reiterate what I said in the introduction, the extension and linearity of the Harbeth Super HL5plus’s frequency response is in my memory, unprecedented. I’ve seen speakers with better low-frequency extension, speakers with better high-frequency extension, and speakers with greater overall linearity. But the Harbeth Super HL5plus is the first speaker I’ve seen that has been able to deliver all three of these very desirable attributes in the one package. Equally important, it’s done it with a design that’s an easy load for any amplifier to drive and using a cabinet whose dimensions are not even close to being visually intimidating. I’m not sure who to congratulate for this marvellous achievement, the BBC, Dudley Harwood or Alan Shaw... or all three. But whoever was responsible—individually or collectively—congratulations are most certainly due, and even more certainly very well-deserved.

So now I have presented links to two reviews of a speaker FROM THE ACTUAL SPEAKER COMPANY UNDER DEBATE where both listening impressions AND THE MEASUREMENTS indicate a low coloration, faithful presentation of the signal.

So how about, instead of just trying to knock me down a notch, you actually address the points I’ve actually made.

If YOU are claiming to have a scientific case against what I’ve written, show us how those Harbeth speakers in fact produce "low resolution/50% resolution," where the measurements seem to suggest excellent engineering.

Support your claim that I have refused to embrace "real science."

Show how my objections to mheinze’s remarks that Harbeth speakers only produce "50%" resolution, or are low resolution, are unreasonable.

How about 47%, would that be better ;)
If you are going to continue and quote the SP review, I would have to question your own ability to reason, but I will try one more time.
Today, you can have a pistonic cone that will be well damped and will outperform anything Harbeth’s cone material is doing. There are no reasons to use a polypropylene cone anymore (maybe cost - but you can find much better drivers on a similar priced Focals etc). How about putting two tweeters (covering the same frq??!) one on top of the other? Look at the measurements, a complete mess above 12KHz, due to phase discrepancy between the tweeters, or breakup (even JA said something about that - forgetting that these measurements are "beyond reproach"). Did you see the parts quality of the XO? The cheap magnets on the drivers, and what about the enclosure, my god, it produces so much noise, it is like having another speaker within the speaker playing uncontrollable signals at all time. I am very sorry, it is clear that Allan Show didn’t leave his basement for 40 years. If this was any other product that objectively needed to perform, he would be out of business a long time ago. To look at something like that and have the nerves to say that it performs better then, just about anything I can think of, not to mention the Magicos, is a sad jock, which, sometimes, is what this hobby is :(

sciencecop,

How about 47%, would that be better ;)

Sure. If you can actually support that claim.

Which you haven’t.

Today, you can have a pistonic cone that will be well damped and will outperform anything Harbeth’s cone material is doing.

So you claim.

Where are the measurements showing Harbeth’s specific driver design results in "low resolution?’"

Agreed the tweeter crossover gets messy at 12K, but does THAT entail the overall design is "low resolution?" That’s the case you are supposed to be making, remember? Most of the measurements don’t support that claim and as Atkinson says right after noting the tweeter interference: "However, below the top octave, the HL5plus’s response is superbly even." It’s the radial driver that covers most of the audible spectrum, and it seems to perform very well...which you are studiously ignoring. You CLAIM that driver shouldn’t perform well, but we have MEASUREMENTS in support that it DOES work well and is low in coloration.

And note that if you look at something like the Focal Sopra with the type of drivers you laud, it’s got a hashier spectral decay than the Harbeth speaker.

Did you see the parts quality of the XO? The cheap magnets on the drivers,

And the evidence this results in a speaker design that is "low resolution?" Strange how you keep making assertions that fall well short of actually supporting this claim.

As to the lively cabinet, while Atkinson remarked that the resonant mode at 150Hz *may* be audible he said of the cabinet resonances:

"This suggests that the idea of using a thin-walled cabinet to maximize the quality of a speaker’s midrange reproduction —proposed by, among others, Harbeth founder Dudley Harwood when he worked at the BBC in the early 1970s—does work as promised. "

Once again, this debate has been over the claim that Harbeth speakers are "low resolution" and/or only give "50%" resolution.

You have not supported those claims, only made some assertions you haven’t backed up. Where I have owned the speaker in question, compared them to other designs, and I’ve pointed to reviewer listening tests and measurements indicating the Harbeth has overall low coloration, ESPECIALLY within the range of it’s Radial driver which you attempt to denounce, and that the speaker has superb sonic qualities.

Oh...and of course you have conveniently ignored the measurements and comments from the other review I posted, which suggest the high quality engineering of the Harbeth speaker.

That, and comments like these:

To look at something like that and have the nerves to say that it performs better then, just about anything I can think of, not to mention the Magicos, is a sad jock,

...show you do not debate these issues in good faith.  That’s a strawman.

I have not claimed that the Harbeths perform "better" than Magicos, either in measurements or overall sound quality.  (I'd give some areas to Magico, some to Harbeth.  As I said, to my ears vocals in particular sounded more "right" and believable on the Harbeths).

I have merely been saying that claiming the Harbeth speakers are "low resolution" transducers, especially that they only produce "50%" of the resolution, are to say the least, exaggerated.

You’ve done nothing to actually show the Harbeth design fits such a description. Snide remarks about the speaker designer don’t actually accomplish that, I’m afraid.